[¶l]
The parents of Joseph V. appeal from a judgment of the
District Court (Lewiston, Dow, /.) terminating their
parental rights to the child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. §
4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii) (2016). Specifically,
they allege that there is insufficient evidence in the record
to support the court's finding of parental unfitness by
clear and convincing evidence. See id. §
4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). They also argue that the court
abused its discretion in concluding that termination of their
parental rights was in the child's best interest. See
id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a). We affirm the judgment.

[¶2]
After a two-day hearing, the court issued a judgment
terminating the parents' rights to the child upon
finding, inter alia, that the parents are unwilling or unable
to take responsibility for the child or protect him from
jeopardy within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet
his needs. Seeid §
4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). In its written judgment, the court
found the following facts, which are supported by competent
record evidence. See In reCharles G., 2001
ME 3, ¶ 5, 763 A.2d 1163.

The parents' unwillingness or inability to follow through
with things they acknowledge they need to do was a recurring
theme across the spectrum of evidence presented by the
Department and the [guardian ad litem]. The Court finds that
the parents each failed to attend two CODE evaluation
sessions. ... The parents usually failed to bring diapers and
wipes to the visits. They often failed to bring toys and
activities to the visits. They failed to get [the child]
evaluated by CDS when he was still in their home.

[The child] spent his first 26 months, prior to his removal
in April, 2015, without much opportunity to walk. Due in
large part to the squalor and dangerous conditions in the
parents' home, [the child] spent most of his time in a
Pack & Play playpen, then in the gated living room, where
there was a mattress and a television.

[The child] needs [physical therapy] due to his foot-ankle
musculoskeletal alignment, poor muscle tone, and poor core
strength. He favors his left side. The physical therapy helps
him to build both his stationary and locomotion skills as
well as his strength. He sees [a physical therapist] at
Rumford Hospital once per week. For many months, the
reunification effort has included the expectation that the
parents 'attend appointments and or meet with
providers'.... There have been 34 [physical therapy]
sessions since then. The father has attended 17 sessions; the
mother has attended 7 sessions

Beyond
mere showing up, there is a lack of follow-through that is
well-established

[¶3]
The court's findings detailed above illustrate the
parents' unwillingness or inability to follow through
with the services the child requires to meet his most basic
needs. See In re Jeffrey E.,557 A.2d 954, 956 (Me.
1989) ("In order for a court to take into account the
special medical needs of a child, a present medical emergency
need not exist, nor does such a medical emergency have to be
imminent or even certain to recur."). Given these and
other factual findings, the court could reasonably have been
persuaded that the factual bases supporting its finding of
parental unfitness as to both parents were proved to be
highly probable. See In re Michaela C,2002 ME 159,
¶ 17, 809 A.2d 1245.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&para;4]
The parents also contend that the court abused its discretion
in concluding that termination of their parental rights was
in the child&#39;s best interest. 22 M.R.S. &sect;
4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (2) (2016); In re Thomas H., 2005
ME 123, ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.